Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
To my knowledge there is no requirement as such. The budget projections are more of an advisory nature rather than mandatory.
However, if your scheme does not have enough money when the lift needs replacing then a Special Levy and/or a strata loan will be required.
The 10 year CW plan must be reviewed at least every 5 years so your scheme’s CW plan is due for a review. This hopefully will focus your committee’s attention to the deficit that your scheme is facing.
Here is an extract from the Strataman web site that you might find useful regarding Annual Financial Statements.
“The NSW Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (specifically Sections 92 through 95) has certain requirements regarding annual financial statements so make sure you do your research and find out exactly what needs to be done.
Here’s what the Section 92: The OC must prepare financial statements of the Act states regarding the timing of when the financial statements must be prepared:
- the period that commences on the date of registration of the strata plan and ends on a date that is not earlier than 2 months before the date of the first annual general meeting, AND
- each period that commences on the date up to which those statements were last prepared under this division and ends on a date that is not earlier than 2 months before the next succeeding annual general meeting.
For more details on what should be in the statements have a look at the links below which take you directly to the relevant sections in the Financial statements and accounting records area of the NSW Strata Management Act 2015. Everything you must know is all there.
chesswood – The OC would have to have very strong evidence that they did everything that they could to obtain access to an apartment before issuing a $250 call back fee.
Sometimes it is just not convenient for an occupant to be present to allow access at the time that everyone else does. Other access times should be accommodated by the OC.
An occupants’ “refusal of access” is quite different from an occupant not being able to provide access at the time that the OC wanted.
In my opinion the latter would not be defined as “refusal of access”.
slim – If your scheme has always had that same pet by-law then your scheme has never been a ‘no animal scheme’. Your owners have been mistaken in believing that the animal by-law has been prohibitive.
Instead, your scheme has always had a permissive pet by-law i.e. a by-law been that permits animals based on approval by the owner’s corporation, and with approval not being legally able to be unreasonably with held.
Any owner (or indeed any tenant with an owner’s approval) can apply to keep an animal at your scheme, and if the owner or tenant does not have an animal that has previously caused problems etc then that animal cannot be unreasonably refused by the OC. Approvals are on a case by case basis.
If the owner’s corporation unreasonably with held a pet approval then any affected occupant could take your OC to NCAT, and they would probably win.
Therefore, if I was in your position I would
(a) as soon as possible have the OC ratify a set of acceptable and reasonable conditions for the keeping of an animal (either by the Committee at a Committee Meeting or by amendments to the by-law), and then
(b) at the Committee Meeting resolve to write to the owner and request that the owner formally apply in writing to keep their cat as they are currently in breach of the pet by-law by keeping the cat without approval. Your OC should also provide assurances that approval will not be unreasonably with held by the OC if the cat owner agrees to abide by the conditions for the keeping an animal and does not breach the conditions.
Should your OC wish to formally amend the existing animal by-law to include these conditions then the OC can only do this at a general meeting by the proper processes set out in the Act e.g. a Special Resolution followed by Registration.
Changes to by-laws is a longer process and involves costs e.g. legal costs in the drafting of the by-law, and Registration costs. It would be wise to seek the assistance of a lawyer when wording the amendment to the by-law.
An extra condition that all schemes that I have been involved in have included is that the animal owner must provide a photograph of the animal so that anyone who sees the animal on common property, or sees the animal behaving badly, or ‘lost’, will recognise the animal and know to which owner the animal belongs.
Can you provide some clarification of the meaning of we are in principle a no animal scheme?
Some by-laws are permissive and some are prohibitive. Sometimes it is difficult for a non lawyer to determine which type it is, and what the ramifications are.
If your by-law is similar to one below then it is permissive and would not be deemed to be a no animal by-law. Similar by-laws have been in operation in the NSW legislation since 1986.
16 KEEPING OF ANIMALS
(1) Subject to section 157 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, an owner or occupier of a lot must not, without the approval in writing of the owners corporation, keep any animal on the lot or the common property.
(2) The owners corporation must not unreasonably withhold its approval of the keeping of an animal on a lot or the common property.
Note :This by-law was previously by-law 27 in Schedule 1 to the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 and by-law 28 in Schedule 3 to the Strata Schemes (Leasehold Development) Act 1986.
Below are conditions that are generally found to be reasonable and acceptable in Qld by the Qld Government, so would also probably be acceptable in NSW.
“Common conditions
Common conditions bodies corporate may impose on the keeping of animals include:- The animal is not allowed on the common property, except for the purpose of being taken in or out of the scheme land.
- The animal must be on a lead or adequately restrained while on common property.
- The animal must be regularly treated for fleas.
- The animal must not cause nuisance or interfere unreasonably with any person’s use or enjoyment of another lot or common property.
- The animal be kept in good health and free from fleas and parasites.
- Any animal waste must be disposed of in such a way that it does not create noxious odours or otherwise contaminate the scheme.
- Reasonable steps must be taken to minimise the transfer of airborne allergens from the animal, such as regular vacuuming and/or grooming.
- The committee can withdraw approval for the animal to remain on the scheme if the specified conditions are not complied with.
- The approval only applies to the animal in the application and does not allow the keeping of any additional replacement or substitute animals on the lot.
If you do not comply with the conditions imposed by the committee or written in the by-laws, the committee may withdraw approval for your animal and ask you to remove the animal from the property.”
What is the actual wording of your existing pet by-law, please?
Christmas wreaths on common property doors etc for a limited amount of time I’m OK with, but I am not a fan of shoes outside apartments.
You probably have a reasonable case to have the shoes removed based on fire regulations.
Sometimes these issues can escalate. People can assume that tacit approval has been given so they then push things a little bit further.
I live in a building where occupants not only place their shoes outside their door but also install portable shoe racks to store many pairs of shoes. This clearly impacts on the travel path.
A men’s size 13 shoe is almost 30 cm long!
I can’t see why the often times big and smelly shoes can’t be placed inside the apartment in a shoe rack. These racks aren’t expensive. IKEA sell them.
A recent (i.e. 2019) NSW NCAT decision relating to an owner’s obligations with regard to their tenant’s by-law breach may prove to be helpful.
See link: https://www.lookupstrata.com.au/nsw-ncat-says-landlords-are-not-responsible-for-tenants-noise/
In summary:
“the more interesting aspects of the case are the findings by NCAT that it cannot make orders requiring a lot owner to ensure his or her tenants comply with the by-laws or order one lot owner to pay another owner compensation for a breach of the by-laws”.
Please also read the comments in the link for a suggestions on how to resolve by-laws breaches against tenants in NSW.
There are a couple of issues:
Fire Safety – Are the shoes obstructing the exit system from the building i.e. are they obstructing a path of travel from the building?
It is a compliance breach to obstruct a path of travel from a building. From memory the unobstructed width of the path of travel must be at least one meter.
An obstruction does not necessarily mean a blockage. It can mean an obstacle.
In a dark and smoke filled corridor during an emergency a person would not want to fall over the shoes, thereby creating an additional obstruction by their fall.
By-Laws: Does your building have a by-law relating to occupants and their leaving of possessions on common property?
If you are not on the committee then write to the committee and request that this issue be raised at the next committee meeting. Suggest that a group letter or notice would be a good idea.
If the properties are tenanted then the letter can be placed under the door or sent to the owner and agent with the instruction that the letter be passed on to the tenant.
If I was the owner I would email the SM and state that it is not the owner’s responsibility to pay for the tenant’s bills whether they be a fine or an admin cost.
The SC and SM cannot impose a fine unilaterally for a by-law breach in NSW. Only NCAT can issue fines.
This extract is from the Office of Fair Trading web site:
“The owners corporation can apply to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal if a notice to comply has been issued and the conduct continues. If the Tribunal believes that there has been a breach of a by-law and the notice was given validly, they can issue a penalty of up to $1,100. If the Tribunal has already fined the owner or occupier within the last 12 months for a breach of the same by-law, the penalty imposed by the Tribunal can double to a maximum of $2,200. In this case, the owners corporation does not have to issue another notice to comply before applying to the Tribunal to impose the fine.”
So ….Wait for the SM to take this to NCAT if they dare. I personally don’t think that the SM will stand a chance of winning this by the methods that they are currently using. They possibly issued the initial $550 fines to the tenant without proper authority.
First of all I would check whether your courtyard is on your Title and/or whether it is has been granted to you as Exclusive Use, or as a Special Privilege e.g. a lease etc. You should have been made aware of this when you purchased your Lot.
An Exclusive Use By-Law gives the lot the right to exclusive use and enjoyment of specified parts of the common property. ie – The lot is allowed to exclusively use the courtyard. That would mean the whole of the specified part.
Then check the Exclusive Use By-law for any conditions being imposed upon you within that By-law.
If all looks OK then if I was in your shoes I would wait until the OC took you to NCAT rather than the other way around. This will ‘test their mettle’.
The onus will then be on the OC to prove that you have breached something, rather than on you having to prove that you haven’t.
From your comment is could be that the OC are relying on the ‘appearance of a Lot’ provision – but could be taking this to the extreme (i.e. not acting in accordance with what is just or reasonable), given the situation that you have outlined.
If you wait for the OC to make the move first then (a) you save money, and (b) you get to know their reasons and some of them will probably be ‘loopy’, and (c) they do most of the hard work in establishing their case against you, and (d) you can then argue the OC are acting in a harsh, unconscionable or oppressive manner.
Section 139 (1) states:
“By-laws cannot be unjust. A by-law must not be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.”
The Macquarie Dictionary (Fourth Ed) gives the following definitions:
- harsh adjective 1. Ungentle and unpleasant in action or effect: harsh treatment. 2. Rough to the touch or to any of the senses: a hard surface; a harsh voice. 3. Jarring upon the aesthetic senses; inartistic: his painting was full of harsh lines or clashing colours.
- oppressive adjective 1. Burdensome, unjustly harsh, or tyrannical, as a king, taxes, measures, etc. 2. Causing discomfort because uncomfortably great, intense, elaborate, etc.: oppressive heat. 3. distressing or grievous, as sorrows.
- unconscionable adjective 1. Unreasonably excessive. 2. Not in accordance with what is just or reasonable: unconscionable behaviour 3. Not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.
In the meantime, write the OC Committee an email stating that you do not believe that you are in breach of any by-laws and that you will continue to maintain the status quo, including retaining the lock on the gate, until proven otherwise.
Also advise the OC that you will deem any unauthorised access to your Exclusive Use Area (unless in a genuine emergency) to be a Trespass and that should the OC wish to enter your Lot or take photographs of your Lot from within your Lot boundary that they must first seek your permission to do so.
I have noticed, in Qld at least, an increase in successful claims in QCAT for costs based on the characterization of the applicant (generally an owner) by the respondent (generally the body corp or committee – who often use the services of a lawyer) as being a vexatious litigant, or of the claims being frivolous.
I have found this to be a harsh and intimidating way of dealing with a frustrated owner (applicant) who has problems that are often genuinely concerning.
Although the use of the Tribunals is supposed to be a way of reducing costs it seems that those with the deepest pockets have the advantages.
Is there a problem with the number of washers that the OC has provided? Is that why the additional washers were installed by the owners? If the number of OC washers is inadequate then perhaps your OC should be addressing that problem.
I agree JT.
If there are not enough washing machines and dryers for the number of users is there anything stopping you from plumbings these items into your own apartment and installing them in a kitchen cabinet or a bathroom cabinet as many people in Europe and Asia do?
It should be no more complicated than installing a dishwasher.
I’m not sure what OC approvals you would need but it may be easier than trying to squeeze more machines in the existing common property laundry.
Flatchatter – Are you anticipating installing a privacy screen? If you are then please be aware that S110(7) excludes anything that impacts on the appearance of a Lot.
It is my understanding that privacy screens would therefore be excluded from the category of Minor renovations.